# Ten most common misconceptions regarding musical critique.



## Furretsu (Sep 14, 2008)

From here...



> *1. Visual appeal equals musical appeal.*
> Obvious cases of visual kei faggotry and metal posturing idiocy aside, it’s to say that artsy music videos and photoshoots do not mask the fact that the musicians are just terrible at rousing emotions other than righteous loathing back at them. And even then on the other end, mesmerizing soundscapes wafting from the stage, emanating from spaced-out statues with guitars or what have you. As dorky as they look, no different from the classroom nerd, unmoving but for the subtle flicks of the picks on their fingers, fact remains…. They’ll never get laid.
> 
> That, and the other lesson so implicitly overt.
> ...


----------



## PK (Sep 14, 2008)

*applause*


----------



## OrangeAipom (Sep 15, 2008)

If it sucks live, and it's because of such limitations, why is it live in the first place?


----------



## Furretsu (Sep 15, 2008)

Live shows are pretty much where artists get the bulk of their income.


----------



## Altmer (Sep 15, 2008)

AK some bands just can't play live because they're one-man bands. this goes for a lot of black metal shit

also Radiohead is amazing


----------



## Furretsu (Sep 15, 2008)

Doesn't change anything in my post, though...


----------



## Morbid (Sep 15, 2008)

Altmer said:


> AK some bands just can't play live because they're one-man bands. this goes for a lot of black metal shit
> 
> also Radiohead is amazing


Radiohead are shit ;) but yeah you get some amazing bands like Bathory who could neverplay live. Most of that list is pretty dead on though. Did you write it?


----------



## Furretsu (Sep 15, 2008)

I wish! I just found it when browsing Last.fm journals.


----------



## Tailsy (Sep 15, 2008)

I... I don't get it.


----------



## #1 bro (Sep 16, 2008)

based on this article, I really, really don't like whoever wrote it, and not just because he insulted Radiohead. >( 

first of all, I didn't understand half of what he said because he used all these BIG FANCY WORDS and obscure references. D:   okay, so maybe this is my fault for being stupid, but um, if this guy wants his opinions to be known, he could always try to _make a readable article._ FOR EXAMPLE: 



			
				The Article said:
			
		

> It’s a perpetual scourge that must be expunged from conventional thinking as often as possible, the myth of true objectivity. There’s no such thing as a fully impartial accumulation of knowledge about a band, only pieces of facts presented upon a (presumably) conscious being.


arrgh maybe I'm just a dunce but I had to read this bit several times to figure out what he was trying to say. I'm pretty sure one could reword it so that I only had to read it _once_ to grasp the meaning. mmm, that would be nice. 

with that said, I feel the need to defend my favorite band sooooo:

From point 3, I gathered that he is accusing Radiohead of being praised not because they are good songwriters, but because they do weird shit. 

Well, there _is_ a difference between doing weird shit for the sake of doing weird shit, and doing weird shit in order to make good music. The song Several Species of Small Furry Animals Gathered Together in a Cave and Grooving With a Pict is an example of the former*, while the song Bohemian Rhapsody is a (mild) example of the latter. In Pink Floyd's case, the band should have probably known that no one sits around listening to angry and bizarre forest noises, and therefore no one is likely to enjoy Several Species in a "oh, this is a lovely song" sort of way. _However,_ in Queen's case, they probably knew that while putting an opera section into the middle of a rock song is something that is not often done, it can sound great, and provided that one could make it work, people could enjoy it.

Radiohead do not do weird shit for the sake of doing weird shit.**  All of their stranger songs may at first seem utterly bizarre, but upon repeated listening, they can be quite beautiful. Conducting a brass band, but not bothering to tell them what to play? It seems like it would be just cacaphonous and chaotic, but it sounds _awesome_ in the Radiohead song The National Anthem. Recording a song, then reversing it and putting it on an album? It sounds stupid, but Like Spinning Plates is an great track. 

While some may not like Radiohead's music due to personal taste, the band is _not_ being experimental for the sake of just being weird. They are trying new things in order to create good music. 


*not trying to insult Pink Floyd, they are an amazing band
**Pulk/Pull Revolving Doors is the exception.


----------



## Altmer (Sep 16, 2008)

the guitar-driven radiohead is better than the boring artsy shit of amnesiac


----------



## #1 bro (Sep 16, 2008)

I dunno... OK Computer is amazing of course, but (other than Pablo Honey) The Bends is probably my least favorite of all their albums. Too many of the songs on The Bends are just kind of forgettable, such as Bones, Black Star, Sulk, etc. Amnesiac is far more interesting, to me at least. (though it does have some crappy songs)


----------



## Eevee (Sep 17, 2008)

to me this sounds kinda like "ten most common misconceptions regarding how my dick is way bigger than yours and I am going to wave it around some more"


----------



## Altmer (Sep 17, 2008)

Zeta Reticuli said:


> I dunno... OK Computer is amazing of course, but (other than Pablo Honey) The Bends is probably my least favorite of all their albums. Too many of the songs on The Bends are just kind of forgettable, such as Bones, Black Star, Sulk, etc. Amnesiac is far more interesting, to me at least. (though it does have some crappy songs)


I'm a guitar-centric listener


----------



## goldenquagsire (Sep 17, 2008)

#10 basically contradicts the rest of the article. Is also probably the most relevant. ]:


----------

